woodda Posted January 21, 2007 Share #1 Posted January 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) A thought. Which film do people like to use and which gives them best scanning results. I mainly use Fuji Astia as it is very good for skin tones and produces clean scans. I have tried negative film but find Fuji Reala 100 grainy when scanned Regards Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 21, 2007 Posted January 21, 2007 Hi woodda, Take a look here Which film and also best for scanning. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
woodda Posted January 21, 2007 Author Share #2 Posted January 21, 2007 Samples with which scanner used would be great for comparision Thanks in advance Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 21, 2007 Share #3 Posted January 21, 2007 The BJP published an article on this subject in August 2005, and concluded that slides do scan better than negs (unsurprisingly). Of those they tested, Fuji Astia 100F and Provia 100F got the thumbs up - though the writer stressed that it was because of their "special characteristics" more than the actual scan quality. The two Kodak emulsions tested were Ektachrome E100G and E100GX, which "scanned well at standard settings". As for colour negs, Kodak Portra 160VC and Fuji 160C were preferred. For C-41 b&w, Kodak's film was preferred to Ilford XP2 P.S. For Darrell, the scanner used was a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted January 21, 2007 Share #4 Posted January 21, 2007 I have tried negative film but find Fuji Reala 100 grainy when scanned Regards Hi Darrell! Welcome to the Forum! We've had a number of discussions here about the "fourth color layer" of Fuji films that make scanning really difficult. On the other hand, and I'll offer the caveat that I don't do my own scanning preferring to have my lab do it from the negs on their Fuji Frontier developer to CD, the shots I've posted here on Fuji Reala have gotten more positive comments about the quality of the scan than probably any other characteristic. Odd, isn't it? I don't know if the native Fuji processing equipment knows something the Coolscan et. al. don't? Thanks. Allan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted January 21, 2007 Share #5 Posted January 21, 2007 ...Fuji 160C were preferred. For C-41 b&w, Kodak's film was preferred to Ilford XP2 I gotta' get some of that 160C and try it. I've heard other people say it is nice too. Damn stuff is expensive, though. LOL! ...from a Leica-shooter! Personally I don't care for the Kodak C-41. The images always look kind of murky and dull to me compared to XP2. No accounting for taste I guess. Thanks. Allan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted January 21, 2007 Share #6 Posted January 21, 2007 I have to agree with Allen on the XP2. OTOH, I find most fast films scan poorly due to too much grain. I scan with a Minolta 5400 using SilverFast software. Even though I like XP2 just fine, I prefer Acros and Delta 100 for scanning. Good luck! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 21, 2007 Share #7 Posted January 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, that came up in the piece. The writer mentioned that others had always recommended XP2 for a C-41 mono film suited for scanning, but for him it just didn't pan out. Loadsa "grain" was the order of the day. Strange. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masjah Posted January 21, 2007 Share #8 Posted January 21, 2007 Allan On the Kodak vs Ilford C41 thing, what did you rate the Kodak at? I've found it works better rated at 200. This seems to agree with a recent AP article by Geoffrey Crawley who points out that, from the characteristic curve of these chromogenic films, they are very tolerant to over-exposure, and not very tolerant to under-exposure - better shadow details etc if over-exposed a bit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambroving Posted January 21, 2007 Share #9 Posted January 21, 2007 A thought. Which film do people like to use and which gives them best scanning results. I mainly use Fuji Astia as it is very good for skin tones and produces clean scans. I have tried negative film but find Fuji Reala 100 grainy when scanned Regards All current Kodak color C-41 films are optimised for scanning and show minimal grain. The negative base is also tougher than Fuji C-41 and is less prone to scratching. You might want to try some Portra 160/400 NC for starters, Portra 400 VC in low light, and Portra 160 VC and 100 UC on dull days. You won't need to worry about skin tones with the NC's as it's pro "wedding film". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted January 21, 2007 Share #10 Posted January 21, 2007 I would have to agree with William on the excellent qualities of the Kodak Portra films. The two below were shot on Portra 160NC with a Noctilux. These are just the scans that came with the drugstore one hour prints. The place that does my film, mentioned that they get the best results from Kodak films, so that is why I started using the Kodak Portra films. They use a modern Noritzu mini-lab which scans the negatives and then prints them onto photographic paper using a light based process. If I ask them politely they will usually do high rez scans for my image CD, rather than the smaller scans the prints are initially based on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 21, 2007 Share #11 Posted January 21, 2007 There's a rather unpleasant yellow hue to the shadows on your second photo, Robert. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 21, 2007 Share #12 Posted January 21, 2007 Tim, do you mean on Robert's son's arm and neck? If so it's the reflection off the slide in my opinion. Sorry if you were being ironic - perhaps my irony detector needs a recharge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted January 22, 2007 Share #13 Posted January 22, 2007 do you mean on Robert's son's arm and neck? Morning Steve - yes, that's what I meant. Not sure how I could be ironic on the subject! Its also visible on his face at the edge of his mouth, under his nose and eyes, and on his chin. I'd agree its probably off the yellow slide (or whatever it is). A shame though, as my eye goes straight to it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.